lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v1] sched/numa: add per-process numa_balancing
From
On 11/10/21 12:26 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> Of those two, I agree with the second one, it would be tricky to implement
> but the first one is less clear. This is based on an assumption. If prctl
> exists to enable/disable NUMA baalancing, it's possible that someone
> else would want to control NUMA balancing on a cgroup basis instead of
> globally which would run into the same type of concerns -- different
> semantics depending on the global tunable.
>

Hi!

You talk about the "semantics" of NUMA balancing between global, cgroup
and process. While I read the kernel doc "NUMA Memory Policy", it occur
to me that we may have a "NUMA Balancing Policy".

Since you are the reviewer of CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING. I would like to
discuss the need for introducing "NUMA Balancing Policy" with you. Is
this worth doing?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-17 08:08    [W:0.131 / U:0.724 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site